Survey: Four in 10 Tea Party members are Democrats or Independents

By Sean J. Miller - 04/04/10 03:29 PM ET

Four in 10 Tea Party members are either Democrats or Independents, according to a new national survey.

The findings provide one of the most detailed portraits to date of the grassroots movement that started last year.

The national breakdown of the Tea Party composition is 57 percent Republican, 28 percent Independent and 13 percent Democratic, according to three national polls by the Winston Group, a Republican-leaning firm that conducted the surveys on behalf of an education advocacy group. Two-thirds of the group call themselves conservative, 26 are moderate and 8 percent say they are liberal.

The Winston Group conducted three national telephone surveys of 1,000 registered voters between December and February. Of those polled, 17 percent – more than 500 people -- said they were “part of the Tea Party movement.”

“It’s a good sample size,” said David Winston, the polling firm’s director. “It will certainly give us an initial base to follow where these folks are.”

The group is united around two issues – the economy/jobs and reducing the deficit. They believe that cutting spending is the key to job creation and favor tax cuts as the best way to stimulate the economy. That said 61 percent of Tea Party members believe infrastructure spending creates jobs. Moreover, given the choice Tea Party members favor 63-32 reducing unemployment to 5 percent over balancing the budget.

It isn’t a “purely homogeneous” group, said Winston.

The group has a favorable view of Republicans generally but that drops from 71 to 57 percent if they’re asked about Congressional Republicans. Congressional Democrats are viewed very unfavorably by 75 percent of Tea Party members – a uniquely strong antipathy. An overwhelming 95 percent said “Democrats are taxing, spending, and borrowing too much.”

The group also vehemently dislikes President Barack Obama – even more so than those who called themselves Republicans in the survey. Over 80 percent of Tea Party members disapprove of the job he’s doing as president, whereas 77 percent of Republican respondents said they disapprove of Obama. The Tea Party members are also strongly opposed to the Democrats’ healthcare plan, with 82 percent saying they oppose it -- only 48 percent of respondents overall were opposed.

Tea Party members are more likely to be male, slightly older and middle income. Almost half the members of the group reported getting their news about national issues from Fox News, 10 percent of respondents said that talk radio is one of their top two sources, which is seven-points higher than the average voter.

********************************************

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/90541-survey-four-in-10-tea-party-members-dem-or-indie

Considering the scathing the Tea Party has had here, one would think any decent liberal or democrat would fall on their sword before they joined the Tea Party

ISO

"Considering the scathing the Tea Party has had here, one would think any decent liberal or democrat would fall on their sword before they joined the Tea Party"

Why do people visit the zoo or stare at midgets?

Yeah Sarah Palin is a centrist.

"The group is united around two issues – the economy/jobs and reducing the deficit. They believe that cutting spending is the key to job creation and favor tax cuts as the best way to stimulate the economy. That said 61 percent of Tea Party members believe infrastructure spending creates jobs. Moreover, given the choice Tea Party members favor 63-32 reducing unemployment to 5 percent over balancing the budget."

Not spending will create jobs? But wait spending creates jobs....what? And to top that we'll reduce revenue/taxes. It's GW all over again.

Easy. Stupidity has no party affiliation.

As pointed out above, they contridict themselves so much they're all over the place. But the real sole motivation is this:

"The group also vehemently dislikes President Barack Obama..."

The rest is merely a veiled attempt at rationalization.

So it's really no different than the, proven not to work, GOP Reagonomics. Cut social programs, cut taxes, spend on corp america and it will TRICKLE DOWN to the serfs.

Evidently Ray-gun ain't most people. The deficit grew how much during his reign?

Didn't the "trickle down" depend on who was at the top of your food chain "trickling down" upon the commoners?

I think it is safe to say those that were employed by those that played by the trickle down rules did well.

I think a lot of people got burned (and still do) by relying on the honor system. I wonder how many people get rich by doing "the right thing"?

...and that signifies the greatest difference between a right winger and a progressive..."I, me, mine" vs. "a rising tide raises all vessels"...

Without even making a value judgment between the two approaches, since both are valid, I do think it's a main bone of contention between the two camps when economic policies are being hashed out.

It's awfully hard to do both at the same time.

Fish on...

Todd

Not yet...

Fresh sushi and saki is in my immediate future, however...then a few hours break until steaks and wine at the Met...so ask me again come 'bout 9pm

Fish on...

Todd

C'mon Marsha! That comment is beneath you.

KK,
I was not a true fan of Regan economics, but there is a lot of validity to reducing the top tax rate. I've spewed this out before, so I don't know why I bother, but ...

I work in real estate and deal with a lot of people who have capital invested in the same. Without the capital gains or reduced tax rate, these people will never sell. This means less economic activity for all of us, and, very possibly, higher rents and property costs. At best, they will borrow against the property and re-invest a smaller portion. By reducing the tax rate, people are much more willing to sell and reinvest. In addition, instead of taxing the revenue of the return on investment, we can tax the whole profit at the lower rate, which will result in higher tax payments overall.. If you think those who are wealthy do not consider this, you are sadly mistaken. Many of the decisions made in investment real estate are 100% tax driven.

In addition, think about the 90% tax burden on the wealthiest under Carter. If you were sitting in a room of CEO's and the boss said, well, we can take our corporate retreat in France this year, or we can give you the equivalent in a bonus, how would you vote based on a 90% tax rate. Have the company spend $20,000 on a luxerious, working vacation for you, or give you what will net you $2000.00 cash. Guaranty you most will vote for the vacation. Do you think Bill Gates would takeout money and be taxed 90% or would he leave it in the company, take a deferred compensation and let the company buy another corporate jet or retreat?

Common sense tells us trickle down works. The real question is and has been at what level.

KK,
"Nobody ever paid the top marginal rate, ever................"
Wonder why? Care to explain.

I am more focused on capital gains than on top rates, but, again, I eagerly await you explaination of why no one paid the top rate. Was it because no one made enough or because they hid their money well enough that they never paid it. In my opinion it is very clear why the rich were making more, they were reporting it....
Here is a very basic example for you. Million dollar Hotel owned free and clear, fully deducted. Client makes about 12% return. He decides he would like to retire and buy a RV and vacation home in Arizona and invest the rest in low risk bonds. Today's tax code means he pays 15% capital gain after adjustments. Taken together will selling costs and the adjusted tax lets say he makes $700,000. He can then spend $150,000 on a very nice RV, $200,000 on a small home and reinvest the remaining $350,000 at 4% and have an extra $1166.67 cents a month.
If the tax rate goes up to the 33% rate, he ends up with around $180,000 less overall, so his monthly income falls by over half and he has less to fall back on in case of an emergency.
Instead he can decide to take a 40% loan on the million dollars at 8%. This gives him enough money to buy what he wants and costs him about
$50,000. This compares to the $330,000 at the 33% rate. Now, lets take the hotel. It was returning him 12%, or $120,000 a year. Take the tax rate of 33% and you see he was getting about $80,400 income off the hotel. The interest on his $480,000 loan at the high rate of 8% costs him $32,000 in interest. This leaves him at an income of $48,400 after taxes. This compares to the $14,000 of income if he were to sell. This means in less then 2 years he recoups his $50,000 loan costs. Ecomomically he is much smarter to take a loan and wait it out. The deciding costs will be his health and his need to get out of a higher risk investment.
If he waits, it means that the goverment loses the immediate extra tax revenue and the real estate market loses any fees and expenses associated with the sell. In addition, the person who would buy the hotel now has no incentive to move his money, reducing in another loss of taxes and real estate fees. Take it a step further, and the costs of Interest goes up as there is less money to invest in the low risk investment, meaning the gov't needs to pay more to borrow.
.

Jeepers,
can you tell I am a little bored.